- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35579 WP No. 19191 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 19191 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R.PRABHAKAR, S/O LATE A.RAMRAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. H.R.VARADARAJU, S/O LATE A.RAMRAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SRI. H.R.ANANDARAJU, S/O LATE A.RAMRAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.941, HOODIRAJUPALYA, BENGALURU-560 048. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T.YUGANDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER-I DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 2, BENGALURU, 4TH FLOOR, TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, RAHEJA TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, NO.26-27, WEST WING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35579 WP No. 19191 of 2026 3. SRI. SURESH SHINGANAMALLI, S/O. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA SHINGANAMALLI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.101, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.T.Yugandhar, counsel for the petitioners appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the entire proceedings conducted by the respondent No.1, in R C No.369/2022, passed in O.A.NO.1082/2017, disposed on the file of the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Bangalore, produced at Annexure-A as illegal. (ii) Issue any such orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35579 WP No. 19191 of 2026 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. The bank had initiated O.A. proceedings in No.1082/2017 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. The DRT vide order dated 28.10.2022 had passed the final order. Pursuant to the final order, the Recovery Officer has initiated certain measures. 5. The petitioners grievance is about the initiation of proceedings by the recovery officer pursuant to the DRT order. 6. Counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the order of the DRT has not been assailed before DRAT. 7. The law is settled that any person aggrieved by the order of the DRT must file an appeal before DRAT. In the present case, the petitioners have not exhausted the statutory remedy and have invoked the writ jurisdiction. As there is an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35579 WP No. 19191 of 2026 alternate remedy as contemplated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach DRAT. 8. In the present case, the order of the DRT has not been assailed before the DRAT and hurriedly approached and invoked writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the initiation of further proceedings by the recovery officer cannot be interfered with in the present writ petition invoking writ jurisdiction. This Court declines to exercise the discretionary power under writ jurisdiction. The petitioners may approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if the law permits. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18